Ivermectin Reduces COVID Deaths 62% to 91%, Why Did Uncle Brother Demonize It? The Scientific Misconduct Story

/

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

  • In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin. The review, funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found the drug increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive

  • In early April 2021, Hill was accused of scientific misconduct by the French civic group, Association BonSens. BonSens claims Hill manipulated data to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin. Hill admitted that the study sponsor had crafted the conclusion

  • In early August 2021, Hill published a public notice stating one of the six studies included in his analysis had been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. A revised analysis excluding that study was published in November 2021

  • In the November revision, Hill included 23 randomized clinical trials, concluding ivermectin had no statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations

  • Other meta-analyses of 13 to 24 studies have found reductions in death ranging from 62% to 91%. Recent research has also found a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days)

From [MERCOLA PDF]In mid-February 2021, Dr. Andrew Hill at Liverpool University published a scientific meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials involving the use of ivermectin in 1,255 COVID-19 patients. (The paper was initially posted on a preprint server.)

The review, which was funded by the World Health Organization and UNITAID, found that ivermectin increased viral clearance and reduced COVID-19 deaths by 75%. This is a rather massive benefit, yet the conclusion of the paper was dismissive, saying additional large clinical trials were needed to make a determination about whether or not to recommend its use.

Hill Accused of Scientific Misconduct

In early April 2021, Hill and his coauthors were accused of scientific misconduct by a French civic group called the Association BonSens. The TrialSite News video report from April 5 above reviews the details of this story. BonSens — labeled by some a “controversial group” based on its anti-mask mandate stance — accused Hill of data manipulation to downplay the usefulness of ivermectin.

According to BonSens, Hill’s analysis was then used by the WHO to recommend against ivermectin, even though it appears to have significant benefit. BonSens called on Hill to retract the paper, but Hill remained “resolute and stands behind the study,” TrialSite News said.

At the time, TrialSite News claimed to have been in conversation with “relevant and associated parties,” some of whom have asked to remain anonymous, who say Hill’s study was in fact modified, but that this was done “separate and apart from the investigator,” and that Hill had no say in the matter.

However, since then, one of the six studies Hill included in his analysis has been withdrawn “due to fraudulent data.” In a public notice1 dated August 9, 2021, Hill and his coauthors addressed the matter, saying they would submit “a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.” A revised and updated meta-analysis was published in November 2021.2

The updated review includes data from 23 randomized clinical trials with a total of 3,349 patients. Studies with “high risk of bias” were excluded. In this analysis, Hill found that “Ivermectin did not show a statistically significant effect on survival or hospitalizations,” and had only “borderline significant effect on duration of hospitalization in comparison with standard of care.”

No significant effect on clinical recovery time was detected. In conclusion, the paper states that the WHO “recommends the use of ivermectin only inside clinical trials.” Curiously, it also states that “a network of large clinical trials is in progress to validate the results seen to date.” What results might those be? Surely, they must be referring to positive results, or else a network of clinical trials would hardly be justified.

Positive Ivermectin Studies Largely Barred From Publication

December 3, 2021, TrialSite News interviewed Dr. Tess Lawrie (above) about her own ivermectin analyses and that of Hill. She points out that she was concerned when she saw the initial meta-analysis Hill published, as the conclusion didn’t match the data. The reduction in death was significant, yet the conclusion was dismissive.

Lawrie contacted Hill, asking him to explain his conclusion to her. He then told her that the conclusion of the paper was not his own. It had been written by his sponsor — the WHO. Lawrie was shocked, she said, as this struck her as a clear conflict of interest.

In the interview, Lawrie also discusses the general difficulty researchers have had, since the beginning, in getting papers published that support ivermectin. She admits her own team has downplayed the benefits by using extremely conservative analyses in an effort to get published.

“It seems, if you tell it like it is, you are not going to get published because you might be accused of overstating your case. And if you understate it, you’re told there’s not enough evidence,” Lawrie says.

Strong Evidence for Ivermectin

According to Lawrie, the evidence for ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 is strong. In a previous interview, she reviewed a 13-study meta-analysis that found a 68% reduction in deaths. A follow-up review that included 15 studies found a 62% to 72% reduction in deaths.3

A five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).

A meta-analysis4 by Lawrie and her team published in the July-August 2021 issue of the American Journal of Therapeutics, which included 24 randomized controlled trials with a total of 3,406 participants, reported reductions in death ranging between 79% and 91%.

A study published February 2021 also reported that a five-day course of ivermectin at a dose of 12 mg per day sped up viral clearance, reducing the duration of symptomatic illness by three days compared to placebo (9.7 days versus 12.7 days).5

According to Lawrie, what makes ivermectin particularly useful in COVID-19 is that it works both in the initial viral phase of the illness, when antivirals are required, and in the later inflammatory stage, when the viral load drops off and anti-inflammatories become necessary.

Dr. Surya Kant, a medical doctor in India who has written a white paper6 on ivermectin, claims the drug reduces replication of the SARS-CoV-2 virus by several thousand times.7 Kant’s paper led several Indian provinces to start using ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and as treatment for COVID-19 in the summer of 2020.8

Africa and Japan Defy the Odds With Ivermectin

Japan and Africa have also defied the odds with ivermectin. As reported by NewsRescue at the end of August 2021, “Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation predicted disaster in the developing world, but so far she has been dead wrong, at least as far as Africa is concerned.”9

Indeed, despite having nearly 1.4 billion people, Africa has maintained one of the lowest COVID caseloads and death rates in the world, accounting for just 4% of the global reported death rate as of mid-May 2021.10 While media feign confusion, ivermectin may well be the explanation for this phenomenon.

A study11 published at the end of December 2020 found that African countries that participated in the African Program for Onchocerciasis Control (APOC), where intensive ivermectin mass campaigns were carried out between 1995 and 2015, had 28% lower COVID-19 mortality and 8% lower infection rates than non-APOC countries that did not participate in the ivermectin campaign.

“That a mass public health preventive campaign against COVID-19 may have taken place, inadvertently, in some African countries with massive community ivermectin use is an attractive hypothesis,” the authors said.12

Similarly, Japan has seen a massive decline in cases after adopting ivermectin as standard treatment against COVID. November 3, 2021, Free West Media reported:13

“The head of the Tokyo Medical Association appeared on national television in September urging doctors to use Ivermectin and they listened. A little over a month later, COVID-19 is under control in Japan ...

Japan had slavishly adhered to all the Big Pharma prescriptions, including quarantine, contact tracing, masking, social distance, but finally the pandemic had hit them hard after they started aggressive vaccination in May 2021.

The results looked good initially, but in mid-July they started rising again and on August 6 cases hit a new all-time high and continued to rise.

Ivermectin was allowed as a treatment on August 13 and after 2 weeks the cases started to come down. In fact, they are now down 99% from the peak ... In Japan, doctors can now prescribe it without restrictions, and people can buy it legally from India.”

Doctors Urge Acceptance of Ivermectin to Save Lives

In the U.S., the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has been calling for widespread adoption of ivermectin, both as a prophylactic and for the treatment of all phases of COVID-19.14,15

FLCCC president Dr. Pierre Kory, former professor of medicine at St. Luke’s Aurora Medical Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in December 2020,16 and the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel January 6, 2021.17 As noted by the FLCCC:18

“The data shows the ability of the drug Ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.

Dr. Kory testified that Ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19 and called upon the government’s medical authorities … to urgently review the latest data and then issue guidelines for physicians, nurse-practitioners, and physician assistants to prescribe Ivermectin for COVID-1919 …

… numerous clinical studies — including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials — showed large magnitude benefits of Ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment and also in late-stage disease. Taken together … dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy.”20

A one-page summary21 of the clinical trial evidence for Ivermectin can be downloaded from the FLCCC website. A more comprehensive, 31-page review22 of trials data has been published in the journal Frontiers of Pharmacology.

At the time of this writing, the number of trials involving ivermectin has risen to 71, including 31 randomized controlled trials. A listing of all the ivermectin trials done to date, with links to the published studies, can be found on c19Ivermectin.com.23

The FLCCC’s COVID-19 protocol was initially dubbed MATH+ (an acronym based on the key components of the treatment), but after several tweaks and updates, the prophylaxis and early outpatient treatment protocol is now known as I-MASK+24 while the hospital treatment has been renamed I-MATH+,25 due to the addition of ivermectin.

The two protocols26,27 are available for download on the FLCCC Alliance website in multiple languages.

Take Control of Your Health Care

If COVID-19 were an actual medical crisis and not an excuse for a tyrannical power grab, doctors would have been allowed, indeed encouraged, to work together to find solutions. Their successes would then have been announced everywhere. Without doubt, ivermectin would have featured heavily in such reports, as doctors around the world have attested to its benefits.

That’s not what happened, though, which tells us we’re not dealing with a medical crisis that governments actually want to solve. As reported by the FLCCC, its members have “been blocked in attempts to disseminate scientific information about ivermectin on Facebook and other social media with the FLCCC’s pages repeatedly being shut down.”28

Seasoned researchers like Lawrie can’t get their research published, and the main thing they have in common is that they’re reporting positive results using ivermectin (and other common remedies). For nearly two years now, doctors and scientist have repeatedly shown we can control the COVID endemic, even with new variants. We can save the vast majority from severe illness and death.

Yet “authorities” within government, regulatory agencies and health agencies have refused to listen and insist there’s only one way forward — we need novel gene transfer injections that direct our cells to churn out the very toxin that makes COVID-19 so problematic. And when those shots are proven failures, the answer, these same “leaders” say, is more boosters!

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. The good news is you can choose who you listen to. You can listen to frontline medical experts, like the FLCCC, and follow their advice.

1 Open Forum Infectious Diseases August 9, 2021; 8(8): ofab394

More Than Half of COVID Patients in Hospitals in England are Being Treated For Something Else

/

SLIDE IS FROM STEVE KIRSCH, '“VACCINE ESSENTIALS”

From [HERE] New figures show that over half of ‘COVID patients’ in hospitals in England are primarily being treated for something else.

Official statistics count 13,023 patients with COVID on Tuesday, but 6,767 were not being treated principally for the virus.

That means 52 per cent of hospital patients being considered to be ‘COVID patients’ aren’t actually COVID patients at all.

In London, the number is even higer, with 64 per cent of ‘COVID’ patients in hospital for a different reason.

Back in September, the number of patients who were being counted as COVID patients despite being treated for something else stood at around 23 per cent, meaning the figure has risen by 29 per cent in four months.

“The growing proportion of patients who are in hospital “with” COVID rather than “for” it is another sign that the current wave of the virus has not led to the same sort of pressure on critical care as in previous waves,” reports Sky News.

As we previously highlighted, a significant number of these COVID patients also only caught COVID after entering hospital for a different ailment.

Figures from December showed that 65% of people described as ‘COVID patients’ only tested positive for COVID after being admitted to hospital for something else.

The issue of whether official hospital patient numbers and death tolls should differentiate between ‘with COVID’ and ‘by COVID’ has been hotly debated for many months.

By artificially inflating numbers by counting people who are in hospital for something else, technocrats and lockdown lobbyists in the media have more ammunition to demand more restrictive lockdown policies.

How Kobe Bryant made his $600 million fortune — and who is in charge of it now?

/

From [HERE] It has been two years since NBA legend Kobe Bryant, his daughter Gianna, and seven others tragically died in a helicopter crash in Los Angeles.

Bryant was an NBA Most Valuable Player, five-time NBA champion, and one of the most influential players who has ever picked up a basketball. He was also a savvy businessman.

Bryant made $323,312,307 from the Los Angeles Lakers during his playing career, the fourth-highest earnings in NBA history behind LeBron James, Kevin Garnett and Chris Paul.

And Bryant’s financial success dribbled off the court, including lucrative endorsement deals with high-profile brands such as McDonald’s MCD, -0.59%, Nike NKE, +0.35%, and Mercedes-Benz DMLRY, -0.36%.

See also: Odell Beckham Jr. took his $750K salary in bitcoin — how much did that end up costing him?

Bryant’s net worth at the time of his death on Jan. 26, 2020 was about $600 million, according to Forbes. Bryant is survived by his wife Vanessa, who is the executor of the Bryant estate, and his daughters Natalia, Bianka and Capri.

One of Bryant’s most successful investments came while he was still playing in the NBA. He put $6 million into sports drink company Body Armor in exchange for a 10% equity stake in the company, according to ESPN. He also became a spokesperson for the brand and participated in recruiting other brand ambassadors.

Coca-Cola KO, 0.32% announced it would buy control of Body Armor in a $5.6 billion deal in November 2021, valuing the sports drink company at $8 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Bryant estate earned around $400 million from the deal, according to the WSJ report. 

Another business win for Bryant was starting a $100 million venture capital firm in 2013 with Jeff Stibel, who had been an executive at LegalZoom, Web.com, Inc. and Dun & Bradstreet DNB, 0.50%.  

Their new VC firm, Bryant Stibel, mainly invested in “businesses with a focus across technology, media, and data,” according to its website. It diversified investments to include both companies in their early stages of growth, as well as larger, more established companies.

The firm was an early investor in The Players’ Tribune, a media company whose content is created by athletes, along with the body care company Art of Sport. Bryant Stibel has also invested in larger companies such as Dell DELL, 0.20%,  Alibaba BABA, -1.25%  and “Fortnite” developer Epic Games. As of 2021, Bryant Stibel counted more than $2 billion in assets, according to CNN business.

But in 2021, the Bryant estate decided not to extend his sneaker and apparel deal with Nike. The footwear giant halted all of its upcoming releases of the Kobe Bryant signature shoe line, and won’t make any more in the future.

“I was hoping to forge a lifelong partnership with Nike that reflects my husband’s legacy,” Vanessa Bryant told ESPN while confirming that talks with Nike had broken down. “We will always do everything we can to honor Kobe and Gigi’s legacies. That will never change.”

When Kobe Bryant was selected as one of the 2020 inductees into the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, Vanessa Bryant and NBA legend Michael Jordan spoke at the enshrinement.

Bryant had indicated that transitioning from a basketball player into a business mogul was a long-term goal that was important to him, especially given his goal-orientated mindset. In fact, he wanted to be remembered as an investor.

“We have to constantly learn,” Bryant said in 2016. “I mean, that’s why our mantra is value growth. Because to grow, you have to constantly learn. You have to constantly move, constantly improve. That’s the key. That’s what makes life fun, I think.”

OK Authorities Murder Donald Grant w/Injection [non-COVID] to Avenge Murders of 2 White Women [‘justice rises no higher than the consciousness and treachery of those self-anointed to administer it’]

/

TRUST US. White authorities employed by the State of Oklahoma executed death row prisoner Donald Grant for the killing of two white Del City hotel workers in 2001.

Grant died at 10:16 a.m. on Thursday. Authorities and the dependent media media, who are promoters of government authority, quickly claimed the execution was without incident. Naomi Keitt, a negro probot reporter from local news station from KJOH described Grant’s murder as “peaceful.” (see end of video below). [MORE]

Notice that when authorities commit murder, its conduct is moral and good. But the same conduct, restraining a person to a chair and injecting them with poison, is reprehensible when done by a mere citizen. Undeceiver Larken Rose states, “What distinguishes a street gang from “government” is how they are perceived by the people they control the trespasses, robbery, extortion, assault and murder committed by common thugs are perceived by almost everyone as being immoral, unjustified, and criminal. . . Whether an act has been formally declared “legal” by politicians, and whether it is being done at the behest of “authority,” has a huge impact on the perceived morality and legitimacy of the act. In a very real sense, those who do the bidding of “authority” are not even regarded as people, in that their behaviors and actions are judged by such a drastically different standard from those of average human beings.” [MORE]

Among Grant’s final words were “Brooklyn for Life” and “the Black man is the original man, peace Lord I’ll be back.”

The Rule of a Barbarous Society. The death penalty is degrading proof of man's inhumanity to man. It shows that man is still living in the barbarous age. Civilization still remains an idea - it has not become a reality.' [MORE]

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Justice – the equal balance of one’s productive and creative energy relative to the dissipative value of one’s consumption and destruction during each life transaction and cumulatively across one’s whole life transaction, i.e., the proper ratio between what one contributes and what one derives from Life. 2) those that are in need of help the most, voluntarily are provided the most help. 3) removing ignorance rather than punishing it. In American law, you get the opportunity to choose whether you’ll live free or slave, and that choice is made by how you live. In theory, justice is invoked by those who seek to live in harmony, proportion, reciprocity and balance, and is preserved by and reserved for phfree men and women well- grounded with an elevated consciousness. Justice belongs to the person in whom each part performs the funktion proper to it, without being overruled by another part. Principally justice has to do with the relationship of the part to the whole. In actual practice, justice rises no higher than the intelligence or stupidity, the skill or ineptness, and the integrity or treachery of those who have been elected, self-appointed or self-anointed to administer it. Sans economic justice—there can be no true justice. (See: Phfree, Law, Tyrannolaw, Jurisprudence, Standing, Locus Delicti, Tyranny, Venue, Original Jurisdiction, “Code of Silence,” Police, Authoritarianism, “Altruism,” Symbiocracy, Demockcracy, Market Economies, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Colonized Mind, Rights & Greed)

OK Authorities Will Murder Black Man at 10AM after Finding Lethal Injection Drugs from Secret Source. Despite Constitutionally Unacceptable Risk of Severe Pain Supreme Ct Declines Review

/

At a February 13, 2020 press conference, republicans Governor Kevin Stitt, Attorney General Mike Hunter and Department of Corrections Director Scott Crow announced that the state will return to a three-drug protocol of midazolam (a sedative), vecuronium bromide (a paralytic), and potassium chloride, which stops the humans heart. Although Blacks make up only 9% of OK’s population, 41% of its death row is Black [MORE] After the announcement the ACLU stated,

“There is simply no humane way for the government to kill its people. Oklahoma’s experiment with the death penalty is a miserable and grisly failure. Death sentences are handed out arbitrarily and magnify the biases that exist within our criminal legal system. Whether someone is executed depends more on which county they happen to be in, their race or gender, the race or gender of the victim and whether they had the financial means to hire adequate legal counsel. Statistics have shown that more than 10 percent of the people with a death sentence have been wrongfully convicted. The government’s actions remain shrouded in secrecy and they continue to refuse to share important details of the execution protocol. In short, the government’s stated position is “trust us.” 

From [HERE] The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday denied a request from a Black death row inmate in Oklahoma to stop his upcoming lethal injection.

In a brief order, the court indicated 46-year-old Donald Grant’s application for a temporary stay of execution was denied. The decision paves the way for Grant to receive a lethal injection at 10 a.m. Thursday at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

Grant’s attorneys had argued that Oklahoma’s three-drug protocol exposes him to a constitutionally unacceptable risk of severe pain, and they had asked the court to reinstate him as a plaintiff in a separate lawsuit challenging Oklahoma's protocol. But a federal judge denied that request, a decision that was upheld by both an appellate court and now the U.S. Supreme Court.

Grant was convicted and sentenced to die for killing two white women Del City hotel workers during a robbery in 2001.

According to DPIC, After a five-year hiatus, in 2020 Oklahoma announced plans to resume executions by returning to the same combination of lethal-injection drugs that were part of its execution protocol during a series of botched executions in 2014 and 2015. 

At a February 13, 2020 press conference, Governor Kevin Stitt, Attorney General Mike Hunter  and Department of Corrections Director Scott Crow announced that the state will return to a three-drug protocol of midazolam (a sedative), vecuronium bromide (a paralytic), and potassium chloride, which stops the prisoner’s heart. Hunter said the state had found a “reliable source” of execution drugs and revised its old protocol to “simply add more checks and balances, more safeguards to the system, to ensure that what has happened in the past won’t happen again.”

Executions in Oklahoma have been on hold since 2015, when the state obtained potassium acetate, a chemical used to de-ice airplane wings, instead of potassium chloride for the scheduled execution of Richard Glossip. Glossip received a last-minute stay of execution as a result of the error. A report by The Oklahoman later revealed that the state had used potassium acetate in the January 15, 2015 execution of Charles Warner, whose last words were “my body is on fire.” The previous execution, that of Clayton Lockett on April 29, 2014, had been gruesomely botched. After 16 failed attempts to set an IV line, one of Lockett’s veins exploded. Lockett died 45 minutes into the procedure of what was described at the time as a massive heart attack. 

In 2016, a grand jury concluded seven months of investigation into Warner’s and Lockett’s executions and Glossip’s near-execution by issuing a scathing report that characterized the state’s actions as “negligent,” “careless” and “reckless.” The report described a litany of failures at nearly every step of the execution process, finding that the judgment of prison officials throughout the process had been “clouded” by the “paranoia” of keeping execution information secret. 

The Attorney General’s Office said the updated protocol will include recommendations from the grand jury report, but Dale Baich, an attorney representing Oklahoma death-row prisoners in a federal lethal-injection suit, criticized the continuing secrecy in the development of the protocol. “The announcement today of Oklahoma’s return to its troubled three-drug midazolam protocol should have been accompanied by a commitment to complete transparency and a demonstration of the efforts the state has taken to fix the significant problems that have plagued recent executions efforts. But it was not. Instead, Oklahoma officials announced the state will revert to its problematic midazolam protocol and provided no assurances that the state is prepared to carry out executions in a manner that comports with the Constitution.” The secrecy provisions in the protocol itself also remain unchanged.

Other experts criticized the state’s use of midazolam, a drug that was also used in the two botched executions in the state. “No improvement in the protocol will address the fact that midazolam is an inappropriate drug to use in executions,” said Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “Midazolam is not capable of knocking somebody out and keeping them insensate during the period in which other drugs are administered.”

“Oklahoma’s history of mistakes and malfeasance reveals a culture of carelessness around executions that should give everyone pause,” Baich said.

Oklahoma authorized the use of nitrogen hypoxia as an alternative execution method, but state officials did not announce a protocol for that method. Officials said, however, that they could not find a manufacturer of a gas delivery device that was willing to have their product used in executions. They also noted that the statute allows nitrogen hypoxia only if lethal-injection drugs are unavailable. Officials did not reveal the planned source of lethal-injection drugs. Every major pharmaceutical manufacturer has stated that they will not knowingly supply drugs for use in executions, so states have turned to secret sources, often compounding pharmacies, to obtain the drugs.

Midazolam has been a factor in the botched executions of Dennis McGuire in Ohio, Joseph Wood in Arizona, and Ronald Smith in Alabama, as well as in problematic executions in Arkansas and Virginia. A federal judge in Ohio likened a similar three-drug execution protocol using midazolam to death by a combination of waterboarding, suffocation, and chemical fire.

Federal Court Stops Alabama's Execution of Matthew Reeves - There is Substantial Evidence Black Man is Intellectual Disabled and His Conviction and Death Sentence are not reliable

/

From [HERE] A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked the state from executing an inmate convicted of killing a driver who gave him a ride, upholding a lower court ruling that he can’t be put to death unless the state uses an untested, new method.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift a lower court order blocking the execution of Matthew Reeves, was originally was set for Thursday and could still happen since the state attorney general’s office said it would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Department of Corrections already has notified potential witnesses in the event it can move forward with the execution of Reeves, which was put on hold by a federal judge earlier this month.

EJI reported, The Alabama Supreme Court had scheduled the execution of Matthew Reeves for Thursday, January 27, despite substantial evidence that he has intellectual disability and that his conviction and death sentence are not reliable.

In 1996, when he was just 18 years old, Matthew Reeves went along with his brother Julius and several other people who planned to commit a robbery. Their car broke down, and when a passing driver stopped and offered to tow their car, Julius decided they would rob the man. Mr. Reeves was arrested and accused of fatally shooting the driver.

Mr. Reeves was too poor to hire a lawyer. His court-appointed lawyers had hundreds of pages of psychological and other records suggesting they needed to have Mr. Reeves evaluated for intellectual disability, but even after the trial court granted them funds, they never hired an expert to evaluate Mr. Reeves prior to trial.

As a result, the jury never heard powerful mitigating evidence about Mr. Reeves’s intellectual disability, including that he failed the first, fourth, and fifth grades and was placed in special education classes, but never advanced beyond middle school.

He was treated for mental health issues beginning when he was eight years old. At age 14, testing revealed that Matthew had “severe deficiencies in non-verbal social intelligence skills and his ability to see consequences.”

A neuropsychologist diagnosed Mr. Reeves with intellectual disability based on testing that revealed he had an IQ of 71 and could read at only a third-grade level. (The State’s expert found his IQ score was even lower, at 68.)

While the jury heard that Mr. Reeves was influenced by his brother Julius, it did not hear evidence that his low intellectual functioning made him particularly susceptible to the influence of others.

Matthew Reeves was convicted in Dallas County of capital murder during a robbery and was sentenced to death even though two jurors voted against a death sentence.

In any other state, the jury’s nonunanimous verdict would bar his execution. Alabama is the only state where a person can be sentenced to death based on a jury’s nonunanimous verdict.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the Eighth Amendment bars the death penalty for children, drawing a line at age 18 that put Matthew Reeves within months of being ineligible for execution based on his young age.

After the Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that a person with intellectual disability cannot be executed, Mr. Reeves’s new lawyers presented expert testimony and other evidence showing that Mr. Reeves has intellectual disability.

But the state courts denied relief, and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, following the same reasoning it used to deny relief to Willie Smith, who was executed in October despite strong evidence that he had intellectual disability.

Like Willie Smith, Mr. Reeves was scheduled for execution by lethal injection because he did not elect a new method of execution—nitrogen hypoxia—within the required 30-day period.

His lawyers argued that, without help, Mr. Reeves could not adequately understand or make the decision to elect a method of execution based on a form provided by the Alabama Department of Corrections. ADOC’s failure to assist him violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, they asserted.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on January 7 granted Mr. Reeves’s motion for an injunction and barred the State from executing him by any method other than nitrogen hypoxia before his ADA claim can be decided on the merits.

The State appealed that order to the Eleventh Circuit, which heard oral arguments on Friday and affirmed the district court’s order on Wednesday.

Transparency? The Government is Destroying Informed Consent to Take Experimental Injections: FDA Requests Court to Delay First 55,000 Page Production and Pfizer Moves to Intervene in the Suit

/

Attorney Aaron Siri states, As explained in prior posts, in a lawsuit seeking all of the documents the FDA relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, a federal judge shot down the FDA’s requested rate of 500 pages per month and instead ordered the FDA to produce at the rate of 55,000 pages per month starting on March 1. 

Since the government has trillions of dollars of our money, it is putting it to good use by fighting to assure that the public has the least amount of transparency possible.  To that end, it has now asked the Court to make the public wait until May for it to start producing 55,000 pages per month and, even then, claims it may not be able to meet this rate. 

The FDA’s excuse?  As explained in the brief opposing the FDA’s request, the FDA’s defense effectively amounts to claiming that the 11 document reviewers it has already assigned and the 17 additional reviewers being onboarded are only capable of reading at the speed of preschoolers. 

Meanwhile…

As the FDA tries to obtain months of delay, guess who just showed upon in the lawsuit?  Yep, Pfizer.  And it is represented by a global chair and team from a law firm with thousands of lawyers.  Pfizer’s legal bill will likely be multiple times what it would cost the FDA to simply hire a private document review company to review, redact, and produce the documents at issue.  Within weeks, if not days.

Pfizer is coming in as a third party.  But Pfizer assures the Court it is here to help expedite production of the documents.  Sure it is!  Where was Pfizer before the Court ordered the 55,000 pages per month?  Right, doing what it normally does: letting the government work on its behalf – like the way the government mandates, promotes, and defends Pfizer’s product.  

But the government did not please Pfizer this time and so here it comes, likely looking for a second bite at the apple.  Of course the FDA consented to Pfizer appearing.  You can read the response my firm filed to Pfizer’s motion , as well as all of the other relevant recent filings in the link provided below.  

Let me end by noting that all of this insanity is simply in response to an attempt to obtain some basic transparency.  This should again bring into sharp focus why the government should never coerce or mandate anyone to get an unwanted medical product or procedure.  Just look at this circus – the government mandates Pfizer’s product, gives it immunity for any safety or efficacy issues, promotes its product using taxpayer money, gives Pfizer over $17 billion and then uses taxpayers’ money to fight to avoid providing even the most basic level of transparency to the public.

The introduction from the brief opposing the FDA’s request is below and you can find copies of all the relevant court filings (FDA Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, January 18, 2022 / Plaintiff Opposition to Motion to Modify, January 24, 2022 / Pfizer Motion to Intervene, January 21, 2022 / FDA Response to Pfizer Motion, January 25, 2022 / Plaintiff Response to Pfizer Motion, January 25, 2022) here:

Israel Leads the World in “COVID Cases" per capita. Highly Vaccinated Adult Population is More Susceptible to Infection Due to Mandatory, Harmful Injections in Fascist Nation Disguised as a Democracy

/

From [NN] Despite the fact that Israel has implemented some of the most draconian COVID-19 pandemic measures in the world, the country is now number one in the world in new cases, according to local reports.

According to the Times of Israel, a leading health expert in the country said that 0.6 percent of the population was testing positive daily for the virus — most likely the latest variant, omicron, which is highly contagious but also very mild.

Prof. Eran Segal of The Weizmann Institute said at that rate, Israel currently leads the world in per capita infection rates, even though the population is required to get the latest version of vaccines available and despite heavy quarantine and lockdown regimes.

However, Segal tried to excuse the high infection rate:

But Segal noted it was likely that Israel was not truly the country with the highest infection rate. Rather, he attributed the figures to Israel being a leading country in the number of tests performed each day, relative to its population size.

Israel is followed in the highest daily cases worldwide ranking by Mongolia, Peru, Canada and Georgia.

The fact is, either you’re the number one country, per capita, in daily infections — or you’re not. And right now, Israel is No. 1, period, no matter how you look at the data.

But instead of realizing that this novel coronavirus is not the world-ender that the world has been propagandized to believe, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is quadrupling down on idiot policies that have not worked yet and are never going to work (because viruses virus — that’s what they do and nothing humans do will stop them from spreading).

The PM “announced Thursday that mandatory quarantine for schoolchildren who were exposed to coronavirus carriers would be scrapped entirely,” the Times of Israel reported. “According to the plan, starting next Thursday, children up to the age of 18 will no longer need to isolate after being exposed.

“Instead, all students — both vaccinated and unvaccinated — will need to conduct two antigen tests a week — on Sundays and Wednesdays — and present negative results when entering educational institutions,” the outlet continued. “Children who test positive for COVID-19 will still need to isolate until testing negative.”

Bennett said that the government will begin distributing “millions” of test kits so that testing can be done at home, an endeavor that is costing tens of millions of dollars to carry out.

Bennett’s order comes as 146,000 school-aged children were already in quarantine due to testing positive for the virus, while another 142,000 were forced into quarantine because they had been ‘exposed’ to the virus (which means nothing considering the virus is literally everywhere).

“Wherever we can make it easier for the public, we will. We are taking Omicron seriously, but also looking at the bigger picture,” Health Minister Nitzan Horowitz said.

Education Minister Yifat Shasha-Biton called Bennett’s order “a brave decision,” while noting further that “it would have been easier to close the education system, but our duty is to save every boy and girl” from the damage of repeated quarantines — even while ordering them into repeated quarantines.

Video Shows Las Vegas Cops Break Into Home and Execute Black Teenager in Raid on Wrong House. Dependent Media Enables Cover-Up by Parroting Police Lies and Treating Murderer Cops Like Heroes

/

From [FTP] If you were to read the local news sites in Las Vegas earlier this month, you would think that police — while saving the public from a dangerous murderer — were ambushed and two of them were shot, barely escaping with their lives. The “shooter’s” face, plastered on news sites, telling the public that he fired 18 shots at officers before they finally and heroically killed him. But Isaiah Tyree Williams wasn’t so much a shooter as he was a victim of police violence. Their badges do nothing to change this reality.

After police executed Williams in his own home, a report from a local CBS affiliate read as follows, “Police said the shooter, 19-year-old Isaiah Tyree Williams, opened fire when officers broke a window and entered the apartment near Nellis Boulevard and Vegas Valley Drive at about 5 a.m. on Monday.”

But the question is this: does defending your home from armed intruders make you a “shooter”?

Had Williams been accused or suspected of a crime, perhaps police may have been more justified in their actions. However, he was not. Williams was not the person police were looking for and thanks to their brutal incompetence, two cops are recovering from bullet wounds and a black teenager is dead.

On that early morning raid, police were looking for 23-year-old Wattsel Rembert who was not staying at that apartment. Rembert is accused of participating in a shooting at a casino back in November. Instead of simply arresting Rembert in a normal manner, police chose to dangerously show up in the middle of the night, bash in doors, throw flash bang grenades, and put everyone involved in danger.

During the raid, Williams, who was asleep on the sofa when armed intruders broke into his home, began firing after a flashbang grenade smashed through his window. Police answered back with their AR-15s and pistols, firing 23 shots into the teen’s body — executing him on the sofa. He was still under the blanket when he died.

Two of the armed intruders, Officer Kerry Kubla, 50, and Officer Brice Clements, 36 were injured in the shooting.

After the shooting, police held a press conference, during which they demonized Williams, rattling off all the charges Williams would have faced for defending himself in his own home against armed intruders who threw a grenade through his window as he slept.

“Had he survived,” police explained, “Williams would have been arrested on counts of attempted murder with use of a deadly weapon on a first responder; battery with a deadly weapon on a first responder, assault on a first responder and three counts of discharging a firearm into an occupied structure.”

For defending himself against armed intruders, clearly intent on doing him harm in his own home as he slept.

As you watch the video below, it is clear that police did yell, “police department, search warrant.” But they did so as they bashed in windows, set off a flash bang grenade and used a battering ram on the door.

The idea that a person — who had committed no crime — is supposed to wake up calmly as windows are breaking and grenades are exploding in their home is utterly asinine and speaks to the failed and ineffective nature of no-knock raids. Sadly, judging by the comments from Assistant Sheriff Andrew Walsh, police still think that early morning no-knock raids keep them safe.

“You have to take into consideration the danger to officers, the danger to the community if you’re ever in that area and in that neighborhood,” Walsh said. “In the early morning hours, it’s much safer for the officers and it’s much safer for the community for us to do it at that time because there are less people out.”

Had Williams not been executed and two officers shot during this raid, Walsh’s comments would be laughable. Unfortunately, however, they highlight the sheer disconnect between the reality of policing and playing warrior cop.

Exposing the entirely unnecessary nature of the raid is the fact that the actual person police were looking for, Wattsel Rembert, turned himself into police without incident.

COPS AMBUSH PUBLIC! NYC's War on Crime is Pretense for a War on Law Abiding Black People: Over 230 Inmates Released from Prison After NYPD Cop is Caught Framing Innocent People for Drug Crimes

/

From [FTP] Charges against the now-disgraced NYPD detective Joseph Franco are being welcomed by the families of more than 130 more New Yorkers as it is leading to the dismissal of their family members’ charges. Franco was reportedly caught framing innocent individuals last year and this is the second wave of case dismissals tied to his corruption..

Last April, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez’s Conviction Review Unit asked for the dismissal of 27 felony convictions and 63 misdemeanor convictions based on Franco’s corrupt policing. Now, that number has grown as Bronx Supreme Court Justice David Lewis granted the motion to drop the felony cases against 133 defendants who were indicted between 2011 and 2015.

“We did not want to dismiss or vacate out of hand all cases he was involved in; we investigated those that hinged on his testimony and sworn statements,” Bronx County District Attorney Darcel Clark said in a statement.

“[Franco’s] compromised credibility suggests a lack of due process in the prosecution of these defendants, and we cannot stand behind these convictions.”

An addition 250 cases are under review and a total of 500 cases could be dropped.

According to ABC 7, Franco was indicted in Manhattan for perjury, official misconduct and other charges in connection with four incidents whereby he allegedly framed numerous individuals for making narcotics transactions.

According to the Conviction Review Unit, the dozens of cases are being dismissed because Franco’s crimes have discredited his witness testimonies.

“Criminal convictions largely based on the work of corrupt former or active NYPD officers who engaged in misconduct while executing their duties flies in the face of the oaths officers take to protect and serve New Yorkers,” said Elizabeth Felber, director of the Wrongful Conviction Unit at The Legal Aid Society, in a statement, according to the NY Post.

After Gonzalez moved to dismiss cases under his office, Judge Matthew D’Emic moved to dismiss dozens of similar drug convictions tied to the corrupt cop. Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Keisha Espinal followed suit vacating more than 50 drug convictions.

As for Franco, he is currently awaiting trial on dozens of counts of first degree perjury and other related charges. Despite facing over a dozen charges in April 2019, and again in July 2019, Franco was not fired from the department until a year later in May of 2020.

“It shows you the unbelievable ripple effect that one individual who wears a shield can have on lives of hundreds, if not thousands,” said Aida Leisenring, a criminal defense attorney with Barket Epstein. “Overturning a wrongful conviction is not a substitute for justice, because the damage has already been done. Filing a lawsuit against the NYPD and receiving financial reparations for that, that’s a step towards justice.”

After NY Ct Stays Order Striking Down Mask Mandate Black Probot Parrots Doggy's Dogma: "Masks Save Lives" and “Stop the spread of COVID.” No Study Proves Masks Stop COVID. They Create Fear/Harm Health

/

The Scientific evidence suggests face masks as worn by the general public do not work. Government health authorities around the world said in 2020 face masks as worn by the general public do not work.  They are telling you to wear them because it creates fear and it keeps the threat of a virus in everyone's mind.  To the contrary, the data support the opposite. That is, masks suppress the immune system, render the mist vulnerable to infection, and amplify more viruses in the compromised who become victims and further spread the disease among family and close contacts” - Dr. Judy Mikovits. [MORE]

'Asymptomatic People Don't Spread COVID. You're Being Lied to. Healthy Persons Spreading COVID is Epidemiologically Irrelevant. So There's No Need for Mandates, Testing, Masks or Shut-Downs.'- Yeadon

From [HERE] New York Attorney General Letitia James Tuesday pushed back against opposition to the New York Department of Health’s (DOH) mask mandate. Robert J. Miller, New York Supreme Court Appellate Judge, stayed a January 24, 2022, ruling by fellow appellate judge Thomas Rademarker which voided 10 NYCRR § §2.60; 2.60(a).

Commissioner of Health for the State of New York, Mary T. Basset, M.D. enacted 10 NYCRR § §2.60; 2.60(a) on December 10, 2021. The rule requires all residents of New York to wear a mask if they are over two years of age and are able to “medically tolerate” masks.

Administrative agencies have powers to promulgate regulations, but only the legislature retains the power to pass laws. Administrative regulations are intended to implement statutes (laws) created by the legislature. For any statute that an agency has been authorized to implement, carry out or otherwise enforce, complementary regulations may be issued by the agency to do so. That is, the statute is like a parent and a regulation is the child. Any regulation that conflicts with a statute is void. Agencies have discretion to create regulations but they must be tied to some statute. An administrative agency, an unelected body of public officials, is a creature of statute and may not act in excess of its statutory authority. Therefore, regulations they enact pursuant to that statutorily provided authority cannot expand that authority." In contrast, laws are made by elected government representatives in the legislative branch of state or federal government. Governments often circumvent the legislative process, which must involve the public (through the use of elected legislative representatives who hold public hearings, debates and make legislative findings subject to public review and participation) by having an agency create a regulation (subject to much less public input and participation and no direct accountability (unelected)). Furthermore, this abbreviated administrative process with less public scrutiny may be all-together eliminated if the agency determines there is an “emergency” imminently harming the public. Under such circumstance, as here, an agency may declare an emergency and immediately issue regulations which expire at a fixed date.

As explained by law professor Babette E.L. Boliek

Every dictatorship, it seems, begins with some sort of claim of crisis or emergency.” There is a balance that must be struck, even in time of emergency, between regulatory efficiency and the procedural safeguards created to protect representative government, curb agency overreach, and promote agency transparency.

In the present case, Judge Rademarker ruled that the regulation is actually a law and was “enacted unlawfully by an Executive branch state agency, and [is] therefore void and unenforceable as a matter of law.”

NEVER TRUST A BLACK PROBOT, EVER. HER BUSINESS IS PROCESS. ACCORDING TO FUNKTIONARY, A PROBOT IS A PROPAGANDIZING PROGRAMMED ROBOT. A PROBOT IS A PROXYMORON WHO CONVEYS PROGRAMMED DISINFORMATION IN COMPUTERIZED LANGUAGE AND BUREAUCRATESE JARGON. A PROBOT IS ONE WHO DISSEMINATES LIES, DISTORTIONS AND CONVENIENT MASS TRUTHS COMPOSED BY A SUPERIOR OVERRULING ELITE. [MORE] THEY FUNCTION WITH AN EXTREMELY LOW LEVEL OF CONSCIOUSNESS AS THEY VIEW OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY AS A MORAL VIRTUE AND PLACE FORM OVER SUBSTANCE, RULES OVER REASON AND LAW OVER HUMANITY. A BLACK PROBOT IS CAPABLE OF ADVOCATING FOR WIDESPREAD AGGRESSION AND DESTRUCTION IF THE RULES SAY SO. ELITES PUT THEM ON THE FRONT LINES.

James released a statement after Miller’s ruling, saying:

Nearly three years into the COVID-19 pandemic, we know that wearing a mask saves lives. This mandate and today’s decision are critical in helping to stop the spread of this virus and protect individuals young and old. We will continue to do everything in our power to prioritize the health and wellbeing of all New Yorkers.

According to the probot, the mask mandate will now remain effective until further action by the appellate court.

The Blight House has Withdrawn its Mandate Forcing Workers at Companies to Get Deadly, Experimental COVID Injections which Don't Stop the Spread or Prevent COVID but are Immune from All Liability

/

From [HERE] and [CHD] The Biden administration has officially withdrawn a rule that would have required workers at big companies to get vaccinated or face regular COVID testing requirements.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration confirmed the withdrawal Tuesday. But the agency said it still strongly encourages workers to get vaccinated.

In early November, OSHA announced a vaccine-or-test mandate for companies with at least 100 employees. The rule — which would have impacted more than 80 million U.S. workers — was originally set to go into effect on Jan. 4.

Mission accomplished though because the goal of Authorities was to get as many people to comply as possible before the mandate could be struck down by a court or withdrawn. Through intense coercion people complied with the mandate and every day the number of people injected increased. And still is increasing through other forms of coercion and purposeful media confusion about whether this mandate was withdrawn (it has been, thanks master). Importantly, many states and local governments have their own mandates which were enacted by Governors or Mayors on an emergency basis in order to circumvent the legislative process (which usually requires public involvement, debate, hearings and findings conducted by elected representatives).

In pulling the rule, the department said it recognized the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) could not be revived after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked it earlier this month.

Instead, the Biden administration is working to set a permanent standard for the vaccine mandate based on the Supreme Court’s ruling, according to a notice provided to the court by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

OSHA said in a press release:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the vaccination and testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, the agency is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule. The agency is prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard.”

OSHA could move a version of the vaccine-or-test rule through its rule-making process, but would still likely face legal challenges, according to David Michaels, a former OSHA administrator and professor at George Washington University.

The Labor Department’s decision to withdraw the rule means pending legal proceedings will be dropped. The case was on its way back to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals to be heard on the merits, although the lower court most likely would have followed the Supreme Court’s lead, The New York Times reported.

Without OSHA’s vaccine mandate in effect, employers must follow state and local laws on COVID workplace safety. Some states have banned vaccine mandates for private employees, while other states, like New York, require them.

“OSHA continues to strongly encourage the vaccination of workers against the continuing dangers posed by Covid-19 in the workplace,” the Labor Department wrote in the notice of its withdrawal.

The Supreme Court on Jan. 13, rejected the Biden administration’s employer mandate.

The court’s conservative majority said the administration overstepped its authority by imposing OSHA’s vaccine-or-test rule.

The Supreme Court’s decision reversed the lower court ruling, imposing a stay on the OSHA mandate.

The conservative majority expressed concerns over the implications of allowing OSHA to implement a widespread mandate without congressional authorization.

“Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life — simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock — would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization,” the opinion stated.

Furthermore, the court said, Congress has “indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers,” but it “has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.”

“Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category,” the opinion read.

The minority justices said OSHA’s mandate is comparable to a fire or sanitation regulation imposed by the agency, while the majority said a vaccine mandate is strikingly unlike the workplace regulations that OSHA has typically imposed as a vaccination “cannot be undone at the end of the workday.”

A majority of the Supreme Court’s justices concluded the applicants challenging OSHA’s mandate were likely to succeed in the merits of their claim and the secretary of labor lacked authority to impose the mandate, resulting in a stay while the case works its way through the 6th Circuit Court.

After the ruling, many companies were left scrambling to decide whether they should abandon the mandate or force their employees to be vaccinated while the lawsuit played out in the lower courts.

Starbucks was one of the first major retailers to backtrack on its plans to require workers to be vaccinated against COVID. Starbucks last week told its 228,000 employees at more than 9,000 U.S. coffee shops it would no longer require workers be fully vaccinated or submit to weekly COVID testing.

In a Jan. 18 memo to employees, Starbuck CEO John Culver said the company respects the court’s ruling and will comply even though it doesn’t align with the company’s beliefs.

A coalition of attorneys general from 27 states called on OSHA to rescind its ETS saying the agency lacked authority to issue a broad mandate.

Where COVID is the Only Attributable Cause of Death, We See the Rate of Death is Remarkably Low. Freedom of Information Response Reveals that Governments and Media are Lying, Inflating COVID Deaths

/

Dr. John Campbell seems surprised at the Office for National Statistics Freedom of Information request about deaths from COVID-19 with no other underlying causes. [MORE]

13 March 2020 to 7 January 2022, England and Wales https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati… 127,704 excess deaths above the five-year average Official data https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai… Deaths from COVID-19 with no other underlying causes FOI Ref: FOI/2021/3240 https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp… Death registrations for 2020 and 2021 for deaths where COVID-19 was listed as the underlying cause, but had no other pre-existing conditions recorded on the death certificate, England and Wales This publication will be updated quarterly 2020 Total deaths, 9,400 0-64, 1,549 65 and over, 7,851 2021 Q1 Total deaths, 6,483 0-64, 1,560 65 and over, 4,923 2021 Q2 Total deaths, 346 0-64, 153 65 and over, 193 2021 Q3, Total deaths, 1,142 0-64, 512 65 and over, 630 Therefore, 2020 and first 3 quarters of 2021 Total deaths from covid alone, 17,371 Of this number 13,597 were 65 or over Of this number, 3,774 were under 65 Average age of death in UK from covid in 2021 82.5 years Average life expectancy in the UK, 2018 to 2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulati… 79.0 years for males 82.9 years for females This represents a fall of 7.0 weeks for males and a slight increase of 0.5 weeks for females (from the latest non-overlapping period of 2015 to 2017) This is the first time we have seen a decline when comparing non-overlapping time periods since the series began in the early 1980s As of end of September https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/detai… Within 28 days of a positive test, 137,133 (7.9 times more deaths) Excess deaths from cancer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U90eD… Professor Karol Sikora, University of Buckingham Former head of cancer programme at WHO Probably an extra 50,000 deaths from cancer, over the past 18 months, you otherwise would not have had Failure to report early Difficulty getting to see GP Fear of hospital admissions Missed chemotherapy Missed radiotherapy 6 million waiting for NHS treatment

"The biggest scandal of this epidemic is that we have been made to believe these are vaccines. They are not vaccines at all." - Dr. Christian Perronne, Professor of Infectious and Tropical Diseases

/

From [HERE] On January 12, 2022, Prof. Christian Perronne participated in the public debates at the Parliamentary Hearing in Luxemburg. He called to suspend these experiment products that are not vaccines.

We have disregarded the science and infringed our rights. The biggest scandal of this epidemic is that we have been made to believe these are vaccines. They are not vaccines at all. Those in the parliament who voted for an experiment product mandate can be personally prosecuted in an international court.


Prof. Perronne’s main arguments:

  • All decisions lack scientific support. Policymakers who stipulated the vaccine policies have relied on “experts” with significant conflicts of interest and misled the public through the mainstream media (also with major conflicts of interest). While the pharmaceutical industry provides zero scientific references, the world’s “most prestigious” scientific journal, namely The Lancet, has published a fraudulent study to discredit chloroquine.

  • Alternative, effective treatment is available; therefore, it is illegal for the experiment product to be authorized for emergency use and, worse, imposed as a mandate.

  • The medical agencies did not evaluate these experimental products properly. There have been defined evaluations for years. It takes about ten years to authorize a standard vaccine and another ten years for the authorized use on pregnant women.

  • More children die from the experiment product than from COVID.

Christian Perronne, MD, PhD, is Professor of Infectious and Tropical Diseases at the University of Versailles-St Quentin, Paris-Saclay, France.

UK Data Shows Doctors are Among the Health Workers Least Likely to Get COVID Injection, while fitness instructors, artists and waiters have some of the highest unjabbed rates overall

/

From [HERE] Doctors are among the health workers least likely to be vaccinated against Covid-19, while fitness instructors, artists and waiters have some of the highest unjabbed rates overall.

New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show vaccination rates by profession at the end of last year. The data provides an early indication of which parts of the NHS and social care workforce could be hardest hit by the compulsory vaccination rule that comes into force in April.

Any health and care workers coming into direct contact with patients must have had a first dose by February 3 in order to meet the deadline. NHS employers have been told to begin dismissal proceedings against unvaccinated staff, including those who refuse to disclose their status, from February 4. [MORE]